Excerpt from an Interview with Osho by the Italian edition of SCIENCE 85 MONTHLY.

Q: ONE OF THE BASIC PROBLEMS OF SCIENCE IS LANGUAGE. SCIENCE IS GROWING BECAUSE WE HAVE A CLEAR DEFINITION OF WHAT WE ARE TALKING ABOUT. ONE OF THE BASIC PROBLEMS FOR A SCIENTIST, WHEN THEY ARE TRYING TO UNDERSTAND WHAT THE INNER JOURNEY MEANS, IS TO DEFINE CLEARLY, FOR EXAMPLE, WHAT CONSCIOUSNESS MEANS. MOST OF THE SCIENTISTS DON’T MAKE ANY DIFFERENCE BETWEEN CONSCIOUSNESS, AWARENESS AND THE CONSCIOUS MIND. THEY ARE USING THIS TERM IN THE SAME WAY. SO I WOULD LIKE TO ASK YOU IF IT’S POSSIBLE TO HAVE AN UNDERSTANDING ABOUT THOSE TERMS.

Yes, there is no difficulty. Words can be defined clearly. The difficulty is not because of the words, the basic difficulty is coming from somewhere else.
That is, the scientist, deep down, does not believe that there is anything inner. He may say so, he may not say so, but his whole training, his whole education, makes him trust only objects which he can dissect, which he can observe, which he can analyze, which he can compose, create, uncreate, find out their basic constituents. His whole mind is object-oriented, and subjectivity is not an object.
So if he wants subjectivity to be put before him on the table, that is not possible; that is not the nature of subjectivity. So the scientist goes on finding everything in the world except himself.

A great barrier exists, and the barrier is that there is nothing inner. When you cut a stone into pieces, what do you find? — more stone. You go on cutting smaller pieces, smaller pieces; you get to molecules, you get to atoms, you get to electrons, but still you have not come to anything inner. They are all objects.
He would also like life to be found in the same way, and because he cannot find life in the same way, he starts denying it. And consciousness is even more difficult a problem; because he cannot touch it, dissect it, find out its constituents, he simply rejects it. It does not exist.

So this is his prejudice. Because of this prejudice, he gets confused. And this prejudice can disappear very simply, if he hypothetically accepts — I’m not saying he has to believe it, just hypothetically he accepts that if there are things outside, then it is something very scientific to accept that there must be things which are inner, because in existence, everything is polarized by its opposite. The outer can exist only if there is an inner. The unconscious can exist only if there is consciousness. This is the simple dialectics of life — and he knows it, in existence everywhere he will find the same dialectics. Everything is opposed by its opposite. And they both are in some strange way complementary to each other — opposing, and still complementary to each other.

Denying the inner is a very unscientific attitude. So first one has hypothetically to accept that the inner exists. Secondly, one has to understand that the methodology that works for the outer cannot work for the inner. Simply because the inner is the opposite dimension, the same methods will not be applicable. You will have to find new methodology for the inner. And that’s what I call meditation: this is the new methodology for the inner.

@61kashif no it’s … @61kashif no it’s not! science may study words and psychology thats not the inner! that is outter as well the brain and all thoughts in it are outter. Inner cannot be studied by science because their is no way to disect it their is no instruments to detect it it is on a completely different plane of existence. You don’t even use the mind to study it it is viewed through the heart through consciousness itself. ONe must drop the brain to enter that realm

You’re absolutely … You’re absolutely correct. What about the math – none of it exists in the real world to be observer and yet people have invented it by the act of thinking. There’s nothing mystic about it. Nothing which can’t be explained – unlike religion, which pretends to be able to explain everything, while denying one’s right to question it.

First of all he is … First of all he is starting his argument on the false premise that scientists only observe objects which are the outer reality.The whole subject of psychology consists of observing and experimenting with the inner world ie thoughts, concepts etc.Science studies all phenomena whether they are internal or external.

I have never seen … I have never seen an insincere look on this man’s face. his whole being seems to emanate truth. People who think he is unenlightened are just jealous or too dumb to understand him. We live in a society of mediocre, unoriginal, outsighted people of coarse he will be of controversy… What original, creative, insightful person is not controversial?

@BishiSab It’s … @BishiSab It’s interesting you say that because I’ve been getting better and better at sensing immediately if “this is a person I want to be around” when I first encounter them. There is a lot of soul depth or a little when you look into someone’s eyes. You can also sense the atmosphere around a person and kind of know if they’re in it for themselves or if they are unselfish and want to understand the cosmos.

just by looking at … just by looking at someone’s eyes you can see into their harts. Yes it takes practis, but this is what awakening is about….!! Be carefull not to be cheated just because you hear a few beautifull words. Always look at peoples background. Has this man been living in England? or US, then has the Cia or other organisations have had power on this man?

@shane90000 Hey … @shane90000 Hey man i think thats to do with a different basis, all the sense are the sensations and interpretations of the brain which is alot bigger and is made up of collective of many many atoms,

The questioner wud … The questioner wud hv bcum more puzzled after OSHO’s answer
He wud try understanding the answer he got and thus either may find go on to inner journey or may go to the “final” journey out of curiosity and being a failure to know the meaning…. HAHAHA

We have been … We have been blessed with the lucky circumstance that some of the awakened teachers within the last decades – like Rajneesh here, or Ulrich (“Eckhart”) Tolle – are not only that but also highly educated, philosophically competent people !